Public Domain License

Also, if I recorded some recitation of Edgar Allen Poe or Charles Algernon Swinburne (both poets in the PD), I should have the option to place the recitation in the PD (and it would be disputable whether or not that *plain and simple recitation* could be anything but PD, but that would be a Commons mailing list topic).

Finally, if someone just wished to release material without any restriction, the PD license would be best.

I believe it would add a license that would allow some material to be placed in a more "correct" licensing category and would do not harm to the site & license compatibility because a PD license is compatible with any use.

ugh, yes to all the above — it came up, was not so much killed as ‘unresolved’ because cc/ccMixter staff could not reach consensus, then, yes buried. There are several issues at play, legality, site policy and ccHost policy being a few. I think in the end we decided (by not deciding) to ship PD choice in ccHost so other sites can enable it if they choose (like Open Clip Art has) and leave ccMixter to be a promotional tool for CC licenses.

Quote: I have to admit, the PD issue hasn’t come up in over a year and a half and I don’t remember why we didn’t include in the site (It’s there to be turned on in ccHost, just not part of site policy).

I’ll rattle some old cages to see if I can come up with the typical semi-reasonable rationale I have when talking about any of this legal jumbo.

VS

Thanks! I really appreciate all the effort you put in ccMixter! (And thanks for not lambasting me for so many PITA questions. :-P)

Quote: The Public Domain cc License I believe is quite needed for the site.

Also, if I recorded some recitation of Edgar Allen Poe or Charles Algernon Swinburne (both poets in the PD), I should have the option to place the recitation in the PD (and it would be disputable whether or not that *plain and simple recitation* could be anything but PD, but that would be a Commons mailing list topic).

Finally, if someone just wished to release material without any restriction, the PD license would be best.

*meow*

I did some snipping on your quote to end up with three points.

First, I agree that CC PD would be a good addition here.

Third, PD is best if you want no restrictions on your work.

Second, (and this is not legal advice) we should realise that when it somes to things that are recorded, there are generally two copyrights. I will call them the (C) and the (P) and while a simple recitation may not be able to qualify for any new (C) I am fairly sure it can get a new (P) and so there would still need to be a PD applied to the (P) part if that is what was wanted.

Can someone else who knows about this issue comment? If you can explain what I am trying to say in a clearer fasion, that would be welcome too.

Bumping the old topic here. I was wondering whatever happened with this. I do have some contributions I would prefer to place under the PD license. Did you ever find out what the deal with the Public Domain licenses is? Or did it slip through the cracks in the madness of busy times? (Not a critcism, just a question.)